Found Deceased IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #159

Status
Not open for further replies.
This post falls at random.

Regarding the vehicles sighted. Could it possible that he was dropped off in a vehicle, then the vehicle drove away. Another vehicle came back and was left for him to get away in?

Far fetched but just a possibility. MOO.

Other cars would have shown up on the Harveststore camera. As far as we know, there isn't such evidence.
 
Burner phone possibly?
No, it was explained pages back that phones have either IMEI or MEID, depending on the carrier.
So a phone with an IMEI number is AT&T and T-Mobile, and one with an MEID (RA's phone) would be Verizon, US Cellular, and the old Sprint network. One of the sites I dug around on to try and understand it basically said a phone using MEID (RA's phone) is much older tech, than ones that have the IMEI.

I hope I got that right. :)
 
OT.
Hahaha. I’m going to blow your mind, it’s duct tape.
Except.... there is a duct tape named Duck Brand duct tape. It's kind of a fun pun. Well, almost a pun.
 
Also one description of the man on the path puts him in a light blue jacket, with grey or a little brown hair and in a duck canvass type jacket. BG is not in a canvas type jacket.

As a former duck hunter, you don't wear light blue. Duck canvass is brown or light brown to camouflage yourself to the brown foliage of the season. Any other color throws you efforts to conceal yourself from ducks out the window.

I'm having problems with this.
Duck canvas is a type of fabric, not a specific color.
 
No, it was explained pages back that phones have either IMEI or MEID, depending on the carrier.
So a phone with an IMEI number is AT&T and T-Mobile, and one with an MEID (RA's phone) would be Verizon, US Cellular, and the old Sprint network. One of the sites I dug around on to try and understand it basically said a phone using MEID (RA's phone) is much older tech, than ones that have the IMEI.

I hope I got that right. :)

Thank you for taking the time to explain again for me! I wonder what we have in Canada.
 
First responders, LE/FF, some medical personnel, and the military, all use 24 hr clock. Airports, airlines, and train employees use it. Some people that use a time clock to punch in/out at their employment use it. I worked for a county government, most depts used 24 hr clock.
It certainly trips up Hughes.
Yep, a lot of healthcare and science/research uses 24hr time as well (they are trained to, sometimes it's not always enforced).
 
Just my opinion, but from everything I have seen thus far, the police and investigators badly bungled this case and the defense attorneys for RA or anyone else arrested are going to have a field day with that fact.
 
Listened to the latest Murder Sheet podcast as mentioned upthread and there were a couple of interesting points in there around profiles of such an offender

1. This may well have been the accused's hunting ground .... i.e. he had heavily scouted it, and this was opportunistic i.e. he knew where to strike, he was waiting for the right opportunity

2. Such an offender may retain items from the crime (e.g clothing / gun) because this is part of the thrill of the crime. Especially such an offender may voluntarily do police interviews - he may intentionally put himself in the middle of the crime.

3. Regards catfishing - there is a common profile of sex offender who brags but does 'precrime' i.e they talk big but do not actually physically meet/assault victims though it is their fantasy. So the difficulty LE have connecting catfish guy to the crime may be that he never did intend to follow through - but this could lead to 'coincidence' if he shared the info online. I find this idea quite interesting. In other words, the risk of this catfishing is someone else follows through ... It may seem unlikely, but however we look at it, only unlikely explanations are left IMO.

02c
 
Re DNA … maybe I’m totally missing something here, someone please correct if wrong!

but AFAIK since RA had no previous criminal record, LE probably wouldnt have his DNA on file prior to his arrest (IE at the time the PCA was written, describing the bullet evidence et al).

Once he’s arrested he has to submit DNA I believe. So altho LE could’ve gotten a warrant for his DNA or collected it surreptitiously if necessary, maybe they were good with what they had in the PCA & waiting on any DNA analysis til post-arrest.
JMO
The question was, do you think RA's fingerprint was/could have been on the found round?
I do not. I think it would have been known (at the time of the writing of the PCA) and as it is much stronger evidence than the markings on the found bullet, it's my opinion that it would be included in the PCA. I think they would have left off the markings on the bullet info, why give the defense supporting evidence that they can be ready to challenge even before discovery?
An argument could be made that LE/prosecutor discussed this and decided to hold back that his fingerprint and/or DNA were on the bullet.
Could there be a partial, inconclusive print on the bullet? Or partial DNA?

MOO They got his gun and had time to do ballistics examination on comparison ejected rounds before the PCA was written. If there was a fingerprint on the bullet, they would have included obtaining fingerprints in the search warrant(s). If they had enough PC for search warrants and to impound his car, take his clothing, knives, guns, etc, they had enough to swab him for a DNA sample. LE had 2 weeks to process evidence before the PCA was filed.

 
I just want to throw out a couple thoughts about RA talking about having been there when he was. I believe he talked to the Conservation Officer because they had said they wanted to speak to anybody who had been there that afternoon, and he was afraid someone would mention seeing him there. I'm guessing that he did it before it was known that they had the video and audio, and that he would have been much less likely to volunteer the information if he had realized that she had recorded him.

What I've been wondering is if the person who took his statement may have just told them that he(?) had talked to him and he hadn't seen anything, so they had his statement filed with others who had nothing to offer. However it happened, I hope it doesn't affect the outcome of the case if he is the right person. I know I could never be on the jury if/when he goes to trial, though, because I'm not sure there's anything they could say or show that would convince me that he wasn't involved and almost certainly the actual murderer. MOO

Imo the way RA’s attys described RA’s 2017 talk with the CO in their press release makes it sound impromptu - a meeting that took place “outside the local grocery store.”

Have to doubt RA went to the local grocery store w the specific purpose of meeting an officer outside to file his witness report! And this location certainly is not where any professional LEO would choose to conduct a witness interview.

JMO so I assume RA & the CO were both at the local grocery store for the normal reason, to shop, and that their conversation started off socially because they knew each other. <snipped for focus>

Anyway my actual reply point was…. if indeed this CO & RA were friendly enough to stop & talk at the grocery store, it’s easy to see how RA’s tip might have wound up in the “trusted / unverified” category. The crazy part is that it managed to stay there for almost six years!!

<snipped for focus>

Was the “very helpful” pharm tech RA, whose CVS was just two blocks / 1000 feet / .2 miles / .3 km from the Carroll Co sheriff’s office, so friendly with all these guys that he somehow managed to charm them out of taking that report seriously??
JMO
JMO.

I agree with the timing thoughts about RA submitting his 2017 Narrative Statement earlier rather than later.

IMO, the state Conservation Officer (CO) took a concise and thorough report in the context of a Missing Persons investigation/active search and properly submitted it.

As far as we know from reporting, a subsequent “clerical error” resulted in the 2017 RA Narrative being “misfiled” and not included in the case information available to principal investigators.

Per the PC Affadavit, the state CO took RA’s phone ID information and provided RA’s name. I believe state CO also recorded RA contact information (phone number, driver’s license number, address), though that’s JMO since it’s not explicit in the PC Affadavit.

Additional information that I would have liked to see recorded by the state CO is affirmation by RA that RA took the same path back from the Monon High Bridge to his parked vehicle. However, I can understand that the state CO would make the assumption that would be the case, and, since RA did not report seeing anyone else on the return trip, that’s not recorded.

TL;DR: Clearly there was a breakdown with the 2017 RA Narrative being “lost” until recently.

However, I don’t see any indication at this time that RA exercised social influence to bury or de-prioritize the 2017 RA Narrative.

JMO.
 
No, it was explained pages back that phones have either IMEI or MEID, depending on the carrier.
So a phone with an IMEI number is AT&T and T-Mobile, and one with an MEID (RA's phone) would be Verizon, US Cellular, and the old Sprint network. One of the sites I dug around on to try and understand it basically said a phone using MEID (RA's phone) is much older tech, than ones that have the IMEI.

I hope I got that right. :)
I have an LG that is unlocked (can use any carrier) and it has IMEI.

With all that said, I think the original point was whether a phone could be tracked (by LE) using the IMEI and that may have been the reason his was lacking one.
 
I have an LG that is unlocked (can use any carrier) and it has IMEI.

With all that said, I think the original point was whether a phone could be tracked (by LE) using the IMEI and that may have been the reason his was lacking one.
I don't know enough about the subject to know one way or another, but if I had to guess, I'd assume maybe he (RA) thought an older phone with older tech, wouldn't be trackable so that's why he used that one to have with him that day.

Bearing in mind this is a man with (allegedly) no social media of his own. While not unheard of (my pastor and son-in-law both deleted all social media some time ago) I suspect he probably does have accounts in places under a totally different name, but it seems as though he likes to stay off the radar.

And ironically, he's done a pretty dang good job of it. Until now.

jmo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
120
Guests online
3,844
Total visitors
3,964

Forum statistics

Threads
591,528
Messages
17,953,881
Members
228,522
Latest member
Cabinsleuth
Back
Top